Tom’s of Maine can make the toothpaste more natural, but they can’t force consumers to turn the water off when they brush. Coke can make the bottles recyclable, but only consumers can drop them in the blue bin. Sun Chips can make the bags compostable, but only consumers can see that they get to a composting pile instead of a trash can.
 
Communications can fill this gap. With life cycle risks escalating over time, green marketers must now educate their consumers on how to use and dispose of their products responsibly. And empirical evidence suggests consumers are willing to listen to these messages. Use the following tested strategies to engage your consumers.
 
Provide feedback.
The now familiar dashboard feature on Toyota’s Prius provides real-time information on the fuel efficiency being attained by the electric motor and combustion engine. Prius owners report trying to best their previous mileage achievements on successive tries, and they even try to beat each other.

Use peer pressure.
The software company OPower provides electric utilities with software that helps provide comparative information on electricity usage. The program measures efficiency by sending customers “smiley faces” when their performance exceeds that of neighbors. This simple software was responsible for generating sustained reductions of energy usage by 2% in a 2008 test by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

Make it fun.
Incentives and rewards can help too. RecycleBank, for one, does a fine job of educating consumers through the use of games. SmartPhones are also making new information accessible to consumers. Phone applications that check a product’s eco-credentials are becoming especially popular, turning shopping into a new educational experience
 
Make the intangible tangible.
Motivate consumers to use and dispose of products more responsibly by using compelling visuals to better communicate their impacts. The chart from Procter & Gamble (I added the “You are Here”) was intended for businesspeople, so it might be a tad technical, but I think you’ll get my point. It shows the energy impacts throughout various life cycle stages for several product categories, including laundry detergent, shampoos and diapers, among others.


 
If you follow the line that stands out like the Empire State Building, you’ll see that the key energy-related impact of laundry detergent is not related to the production process or supply chain transportation; the main impact is the energy it takes to heat the water. I’m sure you’ll agree that a visual like this combined with additional information-let’s say costs and climate change impacts—could be instrumental in getting consumers to turn the dial down to cold.
 
******
 Jacquelyn Ottman is the founder and principal of J. Ottman Consulting, Inc., an expert advisers on green marketing to consumer product marketers and U.S. government labeling programs. She is the author of four books on green marketing, including the recently released The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding (Berrett-Koehler, 2011).
 Download a free chapter and get more information here.

from The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding (Berrett-Koehler 2011) by Jacquelyn A. Ottman.
 
This post was originally published July 14, 2011 on TriplePundit.com.

Ask businesses why they don’t tout green achievements more often, and their answer will likely be fear of greenwash.

Before you let such fears deter you from making investments in sustainable technology or promoting your green achievements, consider how difficult it is for any advertiser to gain consumer trust.

Consumers have always been skeptical of advertising. Take the food industry, for example. Food brands have long been under government scrutiny for their advertising claims. Today, companies are getting smeared for overpromising health benefits, leaving consumers confused about what’s actually true. But we don’t call that “food wash.”

As I write in my book, The New Rules of Green Marketing, skepticism is so rampant in all industries that consumers trust each other more than they trust brands, ads and media messages in general. That’s one reason social media is soaring right now.

Skepticism is par for the course. Besides, a little skepticism is good – it keeps us on our toes. The now “Wild West” green marketplace will mature. But as is the case for many established industries, the potential to screw up will always be there.

So, proceed with caution. But for the sake of the planet and your business, do proceed. The following strategies will help you avoid greenwash and gain competitive advantage in the process:

1. Walk your talk.

Thwart the most discriminating of critics by visibly making progress toward measurable goals. Being proactive in responding to the public’s concerns and expectations starts with a visible and committed CEO. That’s because CEOs can create an emotional link between the company and its customers. Empower your employees, too. Educate them on environmental issues and the specifics of their company’s processes so they can fuel authentic communications about your company’s green initiatives.

2. Be transparent.

Provide access to details about your products and corporate practices, and continuously report on your progress. In the future, disclosure of environmental impacts may be required by law. Get a jump on competitors and regulators—and score some points with consumers—by voluntarily disclosing as much as possible. During this process, don’t hide bad news. Acknowledge your weaknesses and explain how you’re proactively trying to improve.

3. Don’t mislead.

Be specific, prominent and comprehensive so as not to confuse. Consumers may claim to know what commonly used terms such as “recyclable” and “biodegradable” mean, but they can be easily mistaken—creating risk for unsuspecting sustainable marketers.

The best advice for green marketers is to adopt specific standards for disclosure of green initiatives and to follow the FTC Green Guides or other appropriate government guidelines. If possible, consult with lawyers who specifically address green claims.

4. Enlist the support of third parties.

Let stakeholders in on the steps you’re taking, and educate the public on how they can help. You can also align positively with third parties that perform independent life-cycle inventories, certify claims and award eco-seals. Certifying your product under appropriate eco-labels lends credibility to environmental messages. When choosing eco-labels, be sure to choose wisely based on how relevant the label is to your brand image. If your product has multiple eco-labels, make sure the standards for each do not conflict with one another.

5. Promote responsible consumption.

It’s one thing to design a product to be greener, but you can’t minimize impact throughout the total product life cycle unless consumers eventually use and dispose of your product more responsibly. Enlisting consumer support for responsible consumption is a sure-fire way to build credibility and reduce risk. Products can be designed to make it easier for consumers to minimize resource use. In turn, people will appreciate your efforts to make responsible consumption more manageable.

******

Jacquelyn Ottman is the founder and principal of J. Ottman Consulting, Inc., an expert advisers on green marketing to consumer product marketers and U.S. government labeling programs. She is the author of four books on green marketing, including the recently released The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding (Berrett-Koehler, 2011).

Download a free chapter and get more information here.

Our economy is slowly but surely heeding the signal that carbon is the new watchword. During the past few years, a steady stream of so-called “biobased” products have been making their way to retail shelves — compostable dinnerware made from corn, plant-based laundry detergents, and bamboo flooring among them. Coke and Pepsi are now competing to be first to market with a soft drink bottle derived entirely from sugarcane or other plant materials.

The emerging biobased economy even has its own label — USDA Certified Biobased, pictured here. It’s part of a federal BioPreferred program designed to help grow “green” jobs, stimulate the rural economy, promote energy independence and prompt a shift to renewable resources from petroleum, helping to manage the carbon cycle.

Launched in February 2011, the label needs a little introduction since the term “biobased”, although familiar sounding, represents more than meets the eye. We advised the USDA on strategic marketing considerations related to the launch of the USDA Certified Biobased label. Here’s a primer — and why you need to be thinking about forming your own biobased strategy during 2012.

What is “Biobased”?
Ask a consumer what “biobased” means and they might respond with somewhat erroneous definitions such as “natural” “biodegradable” or “renewable”.  Consult Webster and you’ll come up short. But the USDA (and federal law) defines it quite specifically as “commercial or industrial products, other than food or feed, that are composed in whole, or in significant part, of biological products or renewable agricultural materials (including plant, animal, and aquatic materials), or forestry materials” — hence the label depicting the soil, sea and the sun.

More important than this definition are the program’s intention — to expand the market for alternatives to petroleum-based products by promoting new uses for agricultural commodities such as bioplastics, biofibers and biobased chemicals. It thus excludes products such as office paper, cotton t-shirts and wooden furniture introduced before 1972. (See BioPreferred.gov for more details.)

Both finished consumer and commercial products as well as intermediate products (e.g., platform chemicals, fibers, etc.) are currently eligible to earn the USDA Certified Biobased label. Standards for “complex” products (consisting of many components, such as automobiles) are being developed. Among the many products that have already earned the label are: Procter & Gamble’s Gillette ProGuide Fusion razor package; Papermate mechanical pencils made from Mirel biodegradable plastic, the Greenware line of cold cups made from NatureWorks’ plant-based Ingeo polymer; and intermediates such as Lenzing’s TENCEL lyocell fiber made from eucalyptus and DuPont’s Sorona polymer. Seventh Generation is so bullish about the label that they have certified over 60 of their household cleaning and personal care products — virtually their entire product line-up.

Why Pursue a Biobased Strategy
The credibility and broadscale awareness of the brand USDA positions labeled products to stand out to consumers. In an age where consumers actively seek environmentally preferable biobased products with comparable price and performance, having the USDA certified biobased label increases shelf appeal. And marketing benefits don’t stop there. The federal government, by law and executive order, now gives purchasing preference to over sixty categories of biobased products. Biobased alternatives can also help businesses to manage volatile petroleum-driven costs and ensure sustainable supplies.

Measurement, Transparency and Product Performance
Not every product made with plants or other renewable resources can qualify for the USDA Certified Biobased label. That’s because the USDA has set strict minimums for biobased content in a wide range of “designated” products. For instance, a lip balm may only need 11% biobased content to qualify, while a disposable food container needs 72%. Any product category for which a target has not yet been established must achieve minimum biobased content levels of 25%. Although this 25% bar may at first glance seem low, keep in mind that minimums are based upon the highest levels of biobased content possible without compromising performance, and to encourage participation in a market now ramping up.

Biobased content is measured using a radiocarbon dating test standard, ASTM D6866. This test measures total carbon content and distinguishes the amount of “new” organic from fossil or petroleum-based carbon. This enables the “new” organic (biobased) carbon to be expressed as a percent of the total carbon. To foster transparency, encourage a level playing field and promote continuous improvement, the USDA Certified Biobased label requires disclosure of the percentage of biobased content for the product and/or package.

Caution Advised When Making Environmental Claims
Marketers may realize advantages if they can substantiate a product’s biobased content in support of environmental marketing claims such as “natural”, “biodegradable”, “renewable” or even “non-toxic”. However, none of these environmental attributes are automatic because of a product’s certified biobased content. Whether a claimed environmental attribute can be supported depends upon the amount of biobased content, as well as how the product was processed and transported, and other life cycle considerations.

Keep in mind too, that much consumer confusion surrounds the biodegradability and recyclability of bioplastics. For instance, some resins may not be biodegradable but can be recycled (like Coke’s bioplastic PET PlantBottle, recyclable with petroleum-based PET).  In addition, some traditional petroleum-based plastics are compostable in industrial (municipal) facilities, but not in backyard composters. And no plastic, biobased or otherwise, is designed to readily biodegrade in landfills.

The revised proposed FTC Green Guides, anticipated in 2012, will likely include specific guidance for biobased marketing and related claims. (We’ll discuss this in more depth in future posts.)

What’s Your Biobased Strategy?
According to Kate Lewis, Deputy Manager of the USDA BioPreferred program, since its introduction in February 2011, over 500 products have been certified to use the USDA Certified Biobased label and over 400 applications are in the pipeline.  She reports that her group is “looking forward to working with proactive brand owners to capitalize upon their certification and really drive this new bio-industrial revolution forward.” Now entering the market, these labelers will enjoy first-mover advantage as well as the opportunity to educate their consumers and other stakeholders about the benefit biobased content brings to their products.

Whether one leads or follows, it’s clear biobased products figure prominently in our future. We predict that all products will ultimately be judged by their carbon content and their potential to effect global climate change. So, credible biobased products are and will continue to be a critical component of a long-range strategy. Short-term motivations for developing a biobased strategy, while company and brand specific, can include minimizing cost, enhancing image, reputation and consumer perception, and avoiding potential regulatory risks. So key questions for every brand owner, product manager and CEO in 2012 are What’s your biobased strategy? Do you have a team in place to bring biobased innovation into your brand and product portfolio?

Jacquelyn Ottman and Mark Eisen wrote this article. They are colleagues at New York-based J. Ottman Consulting, Inc. They advised USDA BioPreferred on the launch of the USDA Certified Biobased label during 2011 and are now advising labelers on how to market their participation in the program. Ms. Ottman is the author of The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding (Berrett-Koehler, 2011). Mr. Eisen is the former environmental marketing director at The Home Depot.

Copyright © 2012 J. Ottman Consulting, Inc.

Everyone lauds eco-labels being put forth by such sustainability leaders as Timberland, HP and Levi’s for transparency and commitment, but are they really all that useful to consumers? Likely not.  These labels may be informative and project credibility, but I believe their usefulness can—and must—be taken up a notch.
 
An eco-label’s greatest value is not its ability to simply convey environmental stewardship; rather, an eco-label’s worth lies in how clearly it relates green qualities to what I call “consumer-useful” information. Labels with consumer-useful information put the practical, valuable aspects of a product’s environmental attributes front and center. Such labels allow consumers to quantify savings or other sources of added value over the course of a product’s entire lifecycle.
 
I believe almost every eco-label up until this point has fallen short of this goal —except for the new EPA fuel-economy label, that is. In terms of consumer relevance, the EPA Fuel Economy label sets the bar for a future of eco-labels that motivate rather than simply educate.
 
Yes, this EPA label can be applauded for its highly thorough information on greenhouse gas and smog ratings, but its real value lies in its ability to show consumers at the point of sale how much money they can save by buying a greener car. Thus, this label’s most consumer-useful information is the data on estimated annual fuel costs and the fuel savings projected over five years of the car’s ownership.
 
However ironic it may seem for a green label, this latter information will likely shift more car sales than the environmental data that’s provided due to its practicality (It’s OK to sneak green past consumers, folks.)
 
It’s the planets, babies and daisies thing all over again.
If our eco-labels only boast of “planet-saving” attributes, their allure will be short-lived and their impact will be limited. In a marketplace proliferated by vague, repetitive green claims, it is no longer enough to merely explain benefits to the planet.
 
Green marketing means enhancing product quality across the board. That translates into additional product benefits and helping consumers interact with their environment in new ways. Saving money, bettering one’s health, or lengthening a product’s lifespan are all consumer-useful attributes that eco-labels must depict explicitly. Only in doing so will our eco-labels engender stronger motivation to change consumption habits—the goal all along.
 
So, what can other green communicators learn from this?
Live and learn. In my book, The New Rules of Green Marketing, I commend the following companies’ eco-labels, but the EPA’s new fuel-economy label introduced in May of this year shows me these companies could do even better.
 
In the book I congratulate Timberland’s Green Index as a watershed mark in transparency, but I now believe it could include more consumer-useful information. Looking at the Green Index with a consumer useful lens make me want to see estimates on how long the boots will last (durability) and whether or not Timberland provides a repair/rebuild service akin to Allen Edmonds, the fancy men’s shoe maker. Consumers must be able to quantify benefits and relate green qualities to personal benefits.
 
HP’s EcoHighlights label sports a number of laudable environmental accolades their printers have earned, but at the end of the day, consumers might be more interested in how that eco-information translates into relevant benefits such as ease of double-sided printing, life expectancy and costs per printed page.
 
I initially fell in love with the “Levi’s Care Instructions for Our Planet” label and heartily congratulate Levi’s for including it on their jeans. However, I now believe that consumers would be more apt to follow the instructions (and the planet would be better served) if the primary benefit was making one’s jeans look good longer.
 
Think—and Work—Holistically
 Ensuring consumer-useful eco-data will take a de-siloing of sustainability and marketing responsibilities. Only when consumer, environmental and technical advocates roll up their sleeves at one table will relevant communications be developed.

You hear a lot of talk about the “sin of the hidden trade-offs.” when talking green marketing strategy.  I’ve got news for you, folks. Greening—like life itself—is all about the trade-offs! No product is 100% “green.” So, considering that all products use energy and create waste, green is a relative term. One product is green-er for someone at some time in some place.

Green is Relative
For instance, cloth diapers might not cause any trees to be chopped down, but they do use a lot of hot water. Disposable diapers don’t use water but they do clog landfills and with a lot of hazardous waste at that.

So, what is the greener (est?) solution for any one consumer? The answer is usually: “It depends.” For example— and I’m likely oversimplifying here—cloth diapers might be better in NY where we have lots of water and no landfill. But they might be environmental disasters in the Southwest, where diverting water from other regions might be even more environmentally hazardous than digging a hole in the ground and burying them.

Identify the Trade-Offs
Regional, climatic and other differences cannot be underestimated. I’ve been told that if you live in NY like I do, it may actually be better for the environment to buy conventional strawberries grown in New Jersey rather than shipping in USDA Organic strawberries from California.

Consumers dropped the noisy Sun Chips bag like a hot potato; for the vast majority of them, composting was likely irrelevant or misunderstood. I think the Frito-Lay folks would have been better off if they had introduced their corn-based bags regionally in cities like Seattle and San Francisco that have access to municipal collection of compostables.

Consumers intuitively understand these trade-offs. Who said “life is one big trade-off?”. So, let’s empower them with the information they need to choose among the various products, materials, technologies, and designs that serve their needs better, and greener.